Well, just because we adopt less inflammatory ways to describe our differences does not mean the media will follow suit. But that doesn't mean I disagree that we should make the effort. The media are trying to divide and conquer us. This is a good reason to fight back. But we must put some thought into how we fight back.

By emphasizing our commonalities over our differences, by turning the other cheek and offering love in response to hate, we might seem to be throwing the fight. But I'm not so sure. There's a reason they try to divide us before they try to conquer us. Divided we can be felled; united we will stand.

They say love is stronger than hate. If unity is stronger than division, then apparently there's something to that. The question then becomes, how do we help our fellow Americans resist the temptation to look down their noses at us, even as the media is continually brainwashing them into believing that giving into that temptation is actually a righteous thing to do?

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.

The seller has to pay more 'dollars' to cover his expenses, and his expenses 'went up' because the dollar is worth less than it was yesterday, but it's the seller who raised the price--and the poor, beleaguered Fed and the banks that own it didn't get richer devaluing the 'dollar' by printing more of them?

It's hard to judge his foreign policy because it was a defensive war. I'm not sure.

No it wasn't. But that's for another thread, and there are several of them about this. I won't derail this thread. y/w

Originally Posted by Torchbearer

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

Hear/buy my music here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

No it wasn't. But that's for another thread, and there are several of them about this. I won't derail this thread. y/w

lol

Pry the rail loose, then walk away loudly proclaiming, 'There's no train here, so I didn't just derail a train!' I call b.s.

Traditionally, defensive wars are defined by one criteria: Who fired the first actual shot? By that definition, you're wrong. If you think the first person to goad the other person started the fight, regardless of who throws the first punch, then you may be right.

There, now--we have both points of view represented. Maybe I fixed that rail you pried loose, and the train will stay on track. Hope so. This topic is important enough to us for me to label anyone who distracts us from it a troll.

Last edited by acptulsa; 12-29-2012 at 12:22 PM.

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.

The seller has to pay more 'dollars' to cover his expenses, and his expenses 'went up' because the dollar is worth less than it was yesterday, but it's the seller who raised the price--and the poor, beleaguered Fed and the banks that own it didn't get richer devaluing the 'dollar' by printing more of them?

The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

Looking for a Jacksonian President? Ronald Reagan was very much a Jacksonian, as is our current President, George W. Bush.

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that George W. Bush didn't seek out foreign quarrels. I don't see how that's true of Ronald Reagan either.

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.

Originally Posted by osan

The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

I agree... The Jacksonians really should be natural allies, but we are often too quick to label them as "neocons". Trouble is that the other two camps are so good at convincing the Jacksonians that there is always some dire national interest at stake, and dragging them into new wars and overseas projects.

I agree... The Jacksonians really should be natural allies, but we are often too quick to label them as "neocons". Trouble is that the other two camps are so good at convincing the Jacksonians that there is always some dire national interest at stake, and dragging them into new wars and overseas projects.

So Jacksonians would have been in favor of invading iraq I bet. And since we started the war and have to win, we wouldn't want to "cut and run" even if we have to stay for 100 years.

Lacking a clear agenda, they become the gullible foreign party position.

So Jacksonians would have been in favor of invading iraq I bet. And since we started the war and have to win, we wouldn't want to "cut and run" even if we have to stay for 100 years.

Lacking a clear agenda, they become the gullible foreign party position.

Well they appear, to me, to be more reactionary...if they think there is some imminent sense of danger. But they don't like to stir up conflict where there is no threat to us, and they don't like to linger in a conflict without a clear objective...they would prefer to win and get out. So unfortunately propaganda about WMDs and whatnot is very effective at getting them to support a war that they probably wouldn't otherwise.

Well they appear, to me, to be more reactionary...if they think there is some imminent sense of danger. But they don't like to stir up conflict where there is no threat to us, and they don't like to linger in a conflict without a clear objective...they would prefer to win and get out. So unfortunately propaganda about WMDs and whatnot is very effective at getting them to support a war that they probably wouldn't otherwise.

Ah, so this is the party you join if you want to be foolishly manipulated by Wilsonians and Hamiltonians.

True, but he's been the most outspoken conservative commentator against middle eastern intervention along with Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan is awesome, better than Ron Paul, IMO.

If you like protectionism and nanny state government, sure.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.

In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

Also this Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/whatever bull$#@! isn't going to get us anywhere. Either you support American bloodshed for Israel and other economic interests or you don't. Either you support continuous destabilization in the Middle East or you don't. Either you support our lives and money being wasted while not making anyone safer, or you don't. It is up to us to get people to our side on these issues, and if you really think that labeling current politicians after 1800's Presidents is going to accomplish something, then go for it. But most people would think "what would Jackson do about a nuclear Iran? How the hell do I know?", and then you're back to square zero.

PS: I personally take offense to be labelled an "idealist" when I'm just supporting common sense. Ron Paul's foreign policy is firmly rooted in reality, and if we're going to supply charts that imply that it isn't, that is strongly counter-intuitive.